Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs call

Hi WG chairs,

Clarification question: 

> In lieu of additional normative text, we believe the WG discussion
> supports the inclusion of a new section on "Additional Relevant Codecs".

Inclusion where? 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:47 PM
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Conclusion statement for Recommended Audio Codecs
> call
> 
> 
> We have been running a call for consensus regarding Selecting
> Recommended Audio Codecs.
> 
> At this point the chairs are calling this as "no WG consensus".
> 
> We can however note a strong interest in a non-normative listing of
> potentially important codecs including a description why they should be
> considered to be supported in WebRTC implementations.
> 
> In lieu of additional normative text, we believe the WG discussion
> supports the inclusion of a new section on "Additional Relevant Codecs".
> That can contain a list of codecs which are relevant in specific
> contexts, along with a short description of the context for each.
> Specifically there seems to be interest in understanding the advantages
> and costs of G.722, AMR, and AMR-WB. We hope that text would broaden
> understanding of the WebRTC use case contexts.
> 
> The WG chairs
> Magnus, Ted and Cullen
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb